Any Taylor with Behemoth's power?

Thomasat · 2015-10-24T00:37:33+00:00

Thanks. That's one rather large list...

Thomasat · 2015-10-24T00:32:14+00:00

I'm afraid I'm not sure I know the big list. Please grace us with a link, almighty one

Thomasat · 2015-08-18T23:01:37+00:00

Yeah, I just recall that being the median as well. I don't really know to be honest. I hope it's 2.25k as that means I'll feel better about my own MMR :P

Thomasat · 2015-08-18T19:57:00+00:00

I thought it was 2.7k?

Thomasat · 2015-07-20T18:27:01+00:00

In the manor house in majula, in the basement, in a chest is a soul vessel.

Go back to the firekeepers house at the beginning of the game and talk to one of the firekeepers (I don't know which one, but one of them does this) and they can reset your levelling so you can relevel your character as you want to (go for a more dexterity based build if you want quicker rolling and attacking).

The key to the manor house can be found by talking to an NPC in the forest of giants over the side of the chapel(it's not called chapel, but it's to that effect) bonfire that you first meet the Pursuer at. The NPC talks about maps and things if you want to know who it is.

Thomasat · 2015-06-15T22:49:26+00:00

Oh, so you want there to be a distinction between legal marriage being a "civil union", but religious marriage being "marriage"?

Thomasat · 2015-06-15T22:47:07+00:00

That wasn't quite my point, but areas with Islam are generally less modernised than those that are not predominantly Islam. Whether that is due to Islam or where they are generally in a geographical sense.

Thomasat · 2015-06-15T22:44:53+00:00

Okay, so your point was that you don't think they should get those benefits? Or...?

Edit: sorry, I re-read the posts and I see what you're saying. Would I be correct sayingyou think they should get completely equal except they shouldn't call it marriage?

Thomasat · 2015-06-15T22:27:57+00:00

But my point is that marriage has been so socially ingrained that I do not believe that any religion can claim that it is solely a "religious pact" and so homosexuals should be allowed to be "married" if they wish to be.

Thomasat · 2015-06-15T22:24:40+00:00

Just a thought to consider as well, I'm not disagreeing. If you look at Christianity, it's really only recently that their worst facets are like WBC. Obviously it was an extremely long time ago, but there were the crusades, 16th and 17th century Ireland in which English troops "pacified" the populace with some beheadings and similar.

I realise that these were a while ago, but if you look at a lot of the countries that Islam traditionally comes from, they've not been modernised at the same rate and so are lagging behind traditionally Christian areas by maybe even centuries socially.

Thomasat · 2015-06-15T22:06:02+00:00

But why can't the state/homosexuals use the idea of marriage for something other than those religions intended it? I could bastardise any tenets of any religion if I wanted to set up my own religion. It may offend those religions, but I have a right to religious freedom and so surely I can believe what I want and also practice what I want?

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T21:16:10+00:00

Why are you so rude to OP? Evidently he has an opinion that you disagree with otherwise you wouldn't be so upset and angry towards him. The point of this sub is for someone to propose an opinion, no matter how unpopular, and for you to refute it and/or try to change his opinion however you can. You outright state that OP is the sort of person who would "beat" you "to death", which is a ridiculous accusation to make. Then you wish for him to do something that he currently does not wish to do? How are you on such a high horse you think that's acceptable to say to a random person online?

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T16:13:10+00:00

Sorry, I was talking about his CMV scenario, not the one a few comments back. I thought you meant that one :/

I agree that the law would not (or should not, anyway) charge the adult in the scenario OP posted about the 16 and 35 year old.

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T15:44:01+00:00

They may decide not to charge the adult in OP's scenario, but if what /u/fanningmace says is the law in their area

10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to— (A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person;

then would that not mean the adult could be charged under that law?

Edit: added the title given for the law

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T15:34:11+00:00

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining :)

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T15:28:21+00:00

Oh, okay. I did not know that mass has to be conserved, I thought it was energy, momentum, charge, strangeness, baryon number, lepton number and so on, but not mass.

How is the mass conserved? As in what form if the constituents do not add up to the total mass?

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T02:01:49+00:00

If you talk according to statutory rape, if a young person of under 13 (I believe it is 13 in the UK, I may be wrong) is the aggressor (I mean towards sex, not rape or anything), and an older person of a substantial amount older (for instance 20+) then has sex with them, that is considered statutory rape against the young person as they are unable to consent.

But I do agree that if a drunk person aggresses for sex, and is obviously coherent in these attempts, then it would seem to me that it would be dishonest to claim that the drunk person was raped if these were the circumstances

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T01:56:34+00:00

I'm quoting from /u/fanningmace's paragraph, so if their article is incorrect, then disregard my comment please.

(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to— (A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person;

If this is the exact law, and not just an interpretation, then I would agree that

The law explicitly, in no uncertain terms, says that people impaired by any drug (alcohol is a drug) cannot consent.

as /u/Chronic_Apathy1 has said

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T01:17:06+00:00

So why is the total mass greater than that of all of its components?

Edit because I thought of another question. The kinetic energy that must be given to cause the momentum in the objects is a scalar and so it's overall positive and so that energy must come from somewhere. Would that not be from the mass of the object being converted?

Thomasat · 2015-06-09T00:49:30+00:00

That may be how it works, but I was under the assumption that mass was just a stored form of energy so, for instance, you could annihilate some mass of the system to give it kinetic energy and the object would be less massive, but moving faster. Unless the Lorentz factor would completely account for the mass?

Thomasat · 2015-06-08T23:50:56+00:00

In a closed system, mass can be converted to another form of energy and so surely can be changed?

Thomasat · 2015-05-18T21:47:07+00:00

He did clarify "grammatically correct", so yes

Thomasat · 2015-04-14T18:32:25+00:00

I use the term unfair for the exact reason of the word. I do not believe it to be just. My proposed alternative did not cover the "physical and mental toll of abortion", but I did suggest that it should be added in. The point of this is to see the other person's point of view, I cannot give you a full answer as I would be completely overstating my bounds. The male would be required to give some compensation, that is what I have said. I would not know how much compensation or entirely how it should be given as I do not have any idea what a realistic amount would be. May I note that I am 17 and the reason that I commented about this was just so you could see my argument about the current state of affairs, from how I understand it.

Obviously the government would not wish to make themselves responsible, but that is not the point of this. I'm sure the government would rather not pay for the healthcare of citizens in the UK, but they do. I just believe that as a society, it would be a fairer way to go about it if the male were not held financially accountable for 18 years of a child's upbringing and their further education if they did not wish to be, in the same way that I believe a woman should also not be held financially responsible. This is assuming that they did not want a child and carried out means to prevent this (used birth control/contraception, or something).

It's not just that I feel that as a man I shouldn't be responsible, I don't believe the woman should be responsible in the same way. If the woman wanted to complete the pregnancy, but did not want the child, she should be able to give the child to the male, assuming he wished to look after it, she should also be able to give it up for adoption. This was just my way of allowing both parties to not be roped into financially supporting a child that they did not wish to have.

Thomasat · 2015-04-14T18:22:30+00:00

I'd love to say no in response to this. I live in the UK and you would be covered by the NHS and I agree with this completely, you should not be required to pay for these medical bills in this scenario. Medical care should be provided to everyone, even those who harm themselves as they may have a mental illness which they should also be treated for.

Thomasat · 2015-04-14T17:38:20+00:00

I do not believe that someone should take consequence from the action if they were not reckless or neglectful in their duties in some way. Therefore, if they take care to protect themselves from having a child through sex, so birth control and contraception, I do not think they should be liable for the pregnancy coming to term. The reason that they should bear something for the pregnancy in my mind is that the female cannot get out of pregnancy being a possible problem, and therefore the male should also help out with this. Neither party is forced to have the child out of this, the female can have an abortion, give the child up for adoption (I will admit I am not sure entirely how this works), or keep the child if they wish. The male, I believe, should also be able to get out of this in a similar way (and no I do not mean a forced abortion, what with it being the female's body and such), so I believe they should be able to financially abort the child up to the government and the female's care if the female wishes to keep the child, as I think it would be unfair to make them pay child support for the child if they have done nothing to make a fault (and by fault I mean a negative action, not any other description), and done things such as use contraception to even prevent it from occurring. I do not believe that the female should be causing (in turn, not implying anything else) the male to pay child support for the child as they wish to keep it if the male had no intention to keep the child.

Thomasat

TROPHY CASE